During our frequent travels we often attend a Church near whatever RV park we’re staying in. On one such outing several years ago we found ourselves in a Baptist Church in Rockaway Beach, Oregon, where we met Christian missionary Doug Nichols and his wife Margaret. We subscribed to his informative and entertaining newsletters (he may be reached at nichols.doug@gmail.com), and share them with our home Church.


In a recent newsletter he reprinted an article presented in World regarding the decline among those in the know of their belief in Darwinian evolution. The article, entitled The Descent of Evolution and written by the late Robert P. Crowner, a long-time engineer with a deep antipathy against (macro) evolution, summarizes some major faults with the theory, as scientists working in the field of biology are ever more appreciating. Crowner was hopeful that his concise summary might furnish Christians with talking points when engaging diehard evolutionists.


Readers of my postings are generally aware of my own negative attitude regarding Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution. In addition to having posted lengthy articles and summaries on the topic, I have included a detailed appendix dealing with evolution in my Christian nonfiction book Marching to a Worthy Drummer.


Robert Crowner begins by defining microevolution, which covers tiny changes, as opposed to macroevolution, which goes for the big important stuff, including the naturalistic emergence of new species and the creation of life out of non-life. Microevolution, Crowner says, works, while macroevolution doesn’t. I wholeheartedly agree. Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution describes in scientific fashion why the former works and the latter does not.


Crowner continues by addressing five prominent issues of which Darwin wasn’t aware and which militate against the viability of his theory on a macro scale: mathematical chance, irreducible complexity, the fossil record, physiology, and other scientific fields.


Regarding the issue of mathematical chance, Crowner recognizes that all forms of evolutionary theory, from the original up the present, demand the operation of chance on natural laws. He then appeals to the detailed knowledge of several biological systems that science has acquired over the past few decades. This new information associated with protein molecules, living cells and DNA has permitted scientists to perform detailed calculations of the odds relating to the possibility of chance having operated toward the naturalistic creation of these systems of life. What the scientists have come up with goes way beyond the most generously far-fetched estimates of the time it would take to create those biological systems, pointing to the impossibility of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms possessing the ability to have created them. Another factor, not addressed by Crowner, that introduces an enormous difficulty to the workability of evolution by drastically extending the odds against it is the factor of chirality. The sugar molecule of which the DNA backbone is constructed comes in two orientations, called left-handed and right-handed. Each orientation is equally likely in nature. The rub is that each of the millions of sugar molecules that make up each DNA strand must be of the right-handed orientation. This doesn’t matter so much once life has arrived, but can you imagine how improbable it would be for a nonliving system to compile millions of sugar molecules, all of the same right-handed orientation, and that in addition to the enormous odds against life even without that factor? The problem is identical to flipping a coin millions of times and having it come up heads every time. The same problem arises in the use of a gene (subroutine) to direct the assembly of a protein out of amino acids. The rub there is that the amino acids must all be left-handed.


Crowner next addresses the issue of irreducible complexity, first formulated by Dr. Michael Behe and described in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Irreducible complexity describes biological systems comprising multiple components that are useless unless all the components are present and interconnected to perform a specific function. That specific function, whatever it is, is a goal that development must be directed towards over multiple steps, wherein for each step prior to reaching that objective the system remains useless and thus is likely to be removed by chance or embellished upon by a detrimental chance addition before the next required step occurs. The implication is that such systems require anticipation, a quality that naturalistic processes lack by definition, for the ability to anticipate requires a mind. Crowner cites example biological systems described by Behe. A companion issue, not addressed by Crowner, is the attempt made by evolutionists to argue against irreducible complexity through the use of an irrelevant red-herring proposition. “Theistic Evolutionist” Denis Alexander and others tried to use that argument, failing to appreciate why it doesn’t apply to Behe’s concept.


The third issue addressed by Crowner is the fossil record. He notes that others have thoroughly demonstrated that the fossils trotted out by evolutionists are generally fraudulent. He cites a recent book written by Jonathan Wells entitled Icons of Evolution. Another investigator of fossil chicanery is the late Grant Jeffrey, who in his book Creation demonstrated that a number of well-known fossil exhibits were constructed of bone pieces from a number of various animals. He also cites evidence that some fossils were chemically altered to produce the appearance of great age. He further demonstrates that the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel cooked the books in his drawings that accompanied his famous maxim “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. This disproven theory attempted to suggest that the various stages of embryonic development of a creature repeated the stages of its evolution.


Regarding physiology, Crowner cites a number of facts presented by Dr. Geoffrey Simmons in his book What Darwin Didn’t Know, each of which poses a significant problem to the evolutionists. His first fact is the observation that changes to a male’s reproductive system have to be matched by corresponding changes to the female’s complementary system. Along the same lines, Crowner also could have noted that the manufacture of proteins requires pre-existing protein mechanisms such as RNA and ribosomes, both of which themselves are enormously complex. This raises a serious chicken-egg issue that evolution can’t answer. The complexity of the reproductive process, particularly that within the female body, presents another mountainous difficulty to evolution. Another fact is the enormous complexity of the cell, surpassing the most intricately designed machine or manufacturing plant, which Darwin thought was nothing but a jelly-filled rind. Of equally awesome complexity are the other systems cited, the brain, the eye and hormones possessing multiple functions.


Under the final heading of “other scientific fields”, Crowner addresses the strange “anthropic principle”, a feature of the universe in which the physical constants are so finely-tuned that they suggest the hand of an Intelligent Designer.


This article only scratches the surface of the numerous intellectual and actual defects of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian macroevolution, and doesn’t even address the issue of how it has managed to mislead generations of Christians and would-be Christians into the rejection of large portions of Holy Scripture. God through Paul warned of such a situation. In 1 Timothy 6:20 and 21, Paul has this to say:


O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some, professing, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”